US First Lady Michelle Obama Goes On $50,000 Lingerie Spending Spree

Is there any documentation proving that tax payer monies were spent in any part of this? I agree things like this have been way over-publicized but no more than Clinton jogging or whatever Chelsae Clinton has been up to in the last 20 years. Trying to show the public that politicians are "just like you and me" is exactly why I don't believe that they are. If you have to go out of your way to illustrate a point like that, then it's only a reconfirmation that those people are totally disconnected from the real world and do not share the public's interests or concerns.

I want to say that on one level I agree with the MSM's claim that investing in the economy is a good thing, injecting cash has an effect on all those that interact with the businesses where money is being spent. But I also have a sneaking suspicion that monies only get recycled within a certain group of businesses and change hands with a limited group of people when the rich are involved. They do not go to the stores and frequent the restaurants that the masses go to on a regular basis.

reply to post by MrCipher

If you have to go out of your way to illustrate a point like that, then it's only a reconfirmation that those people are totally disconnected from the real world and do not share the public's interests or concerns.

However, they are just as much of "people" as us. First off, there really is no shared public interest and concerns anyway. We all are different.

And what do you mean disconnected from the real world? Which real would are you talking about? Starving tribes in Africa? Religiously oppressed citizens? They would say you were disconnected from the real world.

But you are not, cause everyone has their own "real world".

Define Real World?

The whole topic is absurd. 50k on undergarments is excessive, but they can afford it so who cares. Should. She have to wear the same underwear for the term of his presidency to appease people looking for any reason to complain about them? No. Should this even be a news story? No, but the Obamas act more like celebrities than leaders.
After 15± years of marriage, its nice to see she is still trying to keep the man interested in more then golf and bombing countries. If she were out buying whips, handcuffs, leather body suits and gag balls or other 'personal pleasure devices' that would be a story worth discussion.

It could be worse. Hillary could've been out there holding up granny panties.
Get that image out of your head.

Some people have a sense of entitlement. I really feel sorry for them.

The press mocked Rosalynn Carter for buying clothes off the rack instead of from the designer, which really bugged me. I was impressed with her down-to-earth sensibility.

This kind of spending shows true compassion for the masses who struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table.

I was amused by the comments people posted below the article.

Nice way to not help your husband's re-election campaign.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Maybe she is trying to pad her wardrobe ,at taxpayers' expense,
while she can with the elections approaching.

I'm skeptical to say the least.

I mean, if she did, it is her choice...she can do what she wants with her money.

But...read the article...it only states the 50,000 in the title of the article. They never talk about it in the actual article or give a source for that information. They also say it was Michelle AND the Queen of Qatar...they never say who spent what. Did Michelle spend $500 and the Queen spend $49,500?

And why the british media reporting on Michelle while she is in NYC??? I find it odd that they would be the ones to break a story like this.

And then there is the response from the white house

www.politico.com...

After several British news outlets reported that Michelle Obama spent $50,000 on lingerie at a luxury boutique in New York last year, a White House official told POLITICO the stories are false.

No Source for the information, no dates of the alleged shopping spree, and no distinction between what Michelle may have bought and what the Queen of Qatar may have bought.

Like I said...I'm a bit skeptical on this story.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


What a non-story.

In my view, our system produces lame-ass public officials because we have a lame-ass electorate who thinks stories like this have wide relevance.

If you're criticizing her for her judgment or taste, then I suppose that is fair game-- however meaningless. But if you are criticizing her because she *has* money, then I don't get that at all. So what? There are many 'actual' meaningful things to criticize the Obamas for...

As far as the tax payer security detail....would you rather the families of our leadership (whoever they might be) go without protection and be forced to live in a box? Yeah, I'll sign me and my family up for that job right away!

Stories like this aren't about substance. They're about manipulating you into a reaction that suits the political or commercial aims of another. Think for yourself.

Smashing...Now I have an image of Mrs Obama in a quarter cup bra in my head in time for tea.
Anyway Agent provocateur doesn't just sell knickerage and such, it does allsorts of stuff.

Whips and paddles too...
Imagine that....If I'm having to suffer that vision I'm taking you all down with me...

I'm sorry, but this story is not news. There is no proof that Ms. Obama spent $1 on anything. Where are the receipts? Where is the video of her handing out her credit card for fancy lingerie? I don't even see any proof that Madison Ave was shut down. Pics or it didn't happen.

Deny ignorance!

Funny how ATS screams that if people earn money, they should be able to keep it and spend it how they will.

Until it comes to a politician they don't like.

First, the Obamas are rich, we have no proof it was taxpayers money. It could have been her/their own.

Next, those talking about wages, percentages spent on lingerie, and common sense
Are you married to a rich woman?

When a woman is rich, don't try to preach common sense and get between her and her shoes or lingerie. She could be spending her own money, and if she's spending "their" money ( hers and Barrack's), that's fine too.
A happy wife is a happy life.

A happy President is also something a country should want.


Besides, has anyone checked out the price of lingerie lately?

Originally posted by mileysubet
How do you know for a fact it is tax payers money paying for this?

She does income, in fact all her personal income is self earned.

I think you are just mad because you can't afford the things she can...

You think they called city hall and said, "Here's my debit card number. Clear the streets for my shopping spree. Spare no expense in compensating any who help!"
I reckon not. I think it's more likely the White House called to have the streets cleared. To clarify, clearing the streets and providing transport is on my dime. If employees of city, state or federal gov agencies act in anyway because of this road trip, it's on Uncle Sam, or rather us. I want to know how she paid for the merchandise.
*Nixie-Nox, why would congress try to police itself on issues of using their positions for their own monetary gain? Just something I read last night on yahoo I would think you might have an opinion on.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Anytime the president(or wife) walks down the street it is made safe for them. As far as I know, thats been going for a long time.

So now because its Obama its wrong?

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by GoldenRuled

 

Anytime the president(or wife) walks down the street it is made safe for them. As far as I know, thats been going for a long time.

So now because its Obama its wrong?

So you don't consider their waste of tax dollars an issue? The vacation to Hawaii and money wasted for his ol lady to take a seperate trip is not a concern, as just 1 example. You are alright with paying for these frivilious expenses?

Obviously things must have been lagging a bit with the presidential staff - if ya know what I'm saying.

So, she's just putting together a stimulus package.

Originally posted by GoldenRuled

Originally posted by mileysubet
How do you know for a fact it is tax payers money paying for this?

She does income, in fact all her personal income is self earned.

I think you are just mad because you can't afford the things she can...

You think they called city hall and said, "Here's my debit card number. Clear the streets for my shopping spree. Spare no expense in compensating any who help!"
I reckon not. I think it's more likely the White House called to have the streets cleared. To clarify, clearing the streets and providing transport is on my dime. If employees of city, state or federal gov agencies act in anyway because of this road trip, it's on Uncle Sam, or rather us. I want to know how she paid for the merchandise.
*Nixie-Nox, why would congress try to police itself on issues of using their positions for their own monetary gain? Just something I read last night on yahoo I would think you might have an opinion on.

edit on 30-1-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)

are your referring to their smoke screen attempt at looking like they are cutting budgets by not buying staplers and laying off a few aides?

reply to post by GoldenRuled


It wasn't frivilous until it was the Obama's.

reply to post by Sovaka


Maybe she is making investments...

Ones celeb item spending is an others collectors item.

I am sure the profits will go to sharity.........NOT..

So you don't consider their waste of tax dollars an issue?

I dont know. Whats more valuable? The protection of a life or some money?